At 10:53 AM 6/2/2002 -0400, Karl Waclawek wrote: >Simon St.Laurent wrote: > > > If "namespace processing is off and we've never heard of namespaces", then > > we've never heard of QNames either. If you insist on going this route, > > you'd better change the API to remove the notion of QName when namespace > > processing is off. "Local name" might at least mean "the name local to > the > > element" in cases without any understanding of namespaces. > >I understand it the same way. The confusion in this thread really is: >if NS processing is off, then which should really represent the >element name - qName or localName? I agree with you that localName is >the more natural candidate.
I'm also not certain that we want to encourage developers to look to qName for anything other than prefix-retrieval in any event. I keep hearing of developers who rely solely on qName whatever the status of namespace-processing, and I guess it works for now... Simon St.Laurent "Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
